Polanco Slumping
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Wrathchild
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:23 pm
Polanco Slumping
The problem, though, is that we are having this discussion right now. And right now, for 2018, Polanco has an OPS+ of 115 and Bell has an OPS+ of 102. Polanco is trending up and Bell is trending down. I have no idea where they will be later on and really neither does anyone else, but this season Polanco is quite a bit better.
Polanco Slumping
5D545C4D43390 wrote: Yeah like I said my ask would be a SP. That's the big spot for an upgrade to this team IMO
agreed. I would even trade him for minor league SP talent with real upside. Which would be unpopular, but would give us hope we could start getting top of the rotation types here instead of being Back of the Rotation Inc.
I would also fire Searage tomorrow and revamp the entire Pitching philosophy before Keller arrives and underperforms his potential too. lol
Searage - My guess is the Pirates analytics staff is evaluating the pitchers and results. They must be providing some input into what Searage is doing. After the past two years I'm not sure how happy the Pirates are with the analytics staff. I could see a change there before canning Searage.
agreed. I would even trade him for minor league SP talent with real upside. Which would be unpopular, but would give us hope we could start getting top of the rotation types here instead of being Back of the Rotation Inc.
I would also fire Searage tomorrow and revamp the entire Pitching philosophy before Keller arrives and underperforms his potential too. lol
Searage - My guess is the Pirates analytics staff is evaluating the pitchers and results. They must be providing some input into what Searage is doing. After the past two years I'm not sure how happy the Pirates are with the analytics staff. I could see a change there before canning Searage.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Polanco Slumping
53636F7474696E4D617373000 wrote: What message needs to be sent to Polanco? He's improving his game. This is his best offensive value ever so far this season. He's been better than Josh Bell who, so far, is not improving his game. This whole discussion flabbergasts me.
If you remove his 2016 season, in 392 games, he has .247 BA, .728 OPS, 118 xbh's, 35 HR, 142 RBI, 282 K's against 136 BB's.
So I guess my point is, maybe he's just a slightly below average player at a premium position.
Meanwhile, in only 251 games, Bell has .258 BA, .783 OPS, 85 xbh's, 32 HR, 136 RBI, 172 K's against 108 BB's. His HR's and RBI's are similar to Polanco's in 140 less games.
Again, I removed Polanco's 2016 season, which looks more like an outlier than who he really is.
Why would you remove Polanco's best year and compare his worst seasons to Bell's best season?
If you remove his 2016 season, in 392 games, he has .247 BA, .728 OPS, 118 xbh's, 35 HR, 142 RBI, 282 K's against 136 BB's.
So I guess my point is, maybe he's just a slightly below average player at a premium position.
Meanwhile, in only 251 games, Bell has .258 BA, .783 OPS, 85 xbh's, 32 HR, 136 RBI, 172 K's against 108 BB's. His HR's and RBI's are similar to Polanco's in 140 less games.
Again, I removed Polanco's 2016 season, which looks more like an outlier than who he really is.
Why would you remove Polanco's best year and compare his worst seasons to Bell's best season?
Polanco Slumping
I am not a Polanco fan. His lousy defense and long swing are becoming increasingly frustrating. He has been a major disappointment compared to the hype (remember how many wanted to run NH out of town because the Bucs wouldn't recall Polanco from the minors earlier than they did). That said, I am not sure that the Bucs have a great replacement as of yet, even with Meadows' encouraging play to date.
So, I favor the following:
1) Dropping Polanco to lower in the order.
2) Sitting him against more lefties.
3) If he is still struggling come mid-July, and the Pirates are not performing well, I begin to shop him around to gauge interest.
Bucs have a lot of salary coming off the books next year: Mercer, Dickerson, Freese (small buy-out), Kontos, Rodriguez, and even Harrison if they don't exercise his option. The above is at least $22 mil even if they keep Harrison, and $32 mil if they don't. In short, Bucs have the ability to absorb a contract or two if they choose, and if they move Polanco they have even more to play with.
So, I favor the following:
1) Dropping Polanco to lower in the order.
2) Sitting him against more lefties.
3) If he is still struggling come mid-July, and the Pirates are not performing well, I begin to shop him around to gauge interest.
Bucs have a lot of salary coming off the books next year: Mercer, Dickerson, Freese (small buy-out), Kontos, Rodriguez, and even Harrison if they don't exercise his option. The above is at least $22 mil even if they keep Harrison, and $32 mil if they don't. In short, Bucs have the ability to absorb a contract or two if they choose, and if they move Polanco they have even more to play with.
-
ScottinMass
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:26 am
Polanco Slumping
5E555D5154554E0B0D7A435B5255551459553A0 wrote: What message needs to be sent to Polanco? He's improving his game. This is his best offensive value ever so far this season. He's been better than Josh Bell who, so far, is not improving his game. This whole discussion flabbergasts me.
If you remove his 2016 season, in 392 games, he has .247 BA, .728 OPS, 118 xbh's, 35 HR, 142 RBI, 282 K's against 136 BB's.
So I guess my point is, maybe he's just a slightly below average player at a premium position.
Meanwhile, in only 251 games, Bell has .258 BA, .783 OPS, 85 xbh's, 32 HR, 136 RBI, 172 K's against 108 BB's. His HR's and RBI's are similar to Polanco's in 140 less games.
Again, I removed Polanco's 2016 season, which looks more like an outlier than who he really is.
Why would you remove Polanco's best year and compare his worst seasons to Bell's best season?
Only because Bell has 1 full season and Polanco's best season looks like an outlier.
If you remove his 2016 season, in 392 games, he has .247 BA, .728 OPS, 118 xbh's, 35 HR, 142 RBI, 282 K's against 136 BB's.
So I guess my point is, maybe he's just a slightly below average player at a premium position.
Meanwhile, in only 251 games, Bell has .258 BA, .783 OPS, 85 xbh's, 32 HR, 136 RBI, 172 K's against 108 BB's. His HR's and RBI's are similar to Polanco's in 140 less games.
Again, I removed Polanco's 2016 season, which looks more like an outlier than who he really is.
Why would you remove Polanco's best year and compare his worst seasons to Bell's best season?
Only because Bell has 1 full season and Polanco's best season looks like an outlier.
-
Bobster21
Polanco Slumping
I'm just not enamored with Polanco's potential. Year after year he has demonstrated that he is not a good defensive player. I wonder who it was in the system who sold the Pirates brass on the idea that he was a very good outfielder. They need much better internal evaluations than that. Polanco's long swing can generate power but is not conducive to frequency of hits. So it's not at all surprising that his career high BA is a mere .258. Unless he dramatically changes his swing, it's unlikely he'll ever hit for average. And it's not as if he's a power hitter either. Career best HR total was 22. No other year with more than 11. He should top 11 this year because of his hot start but the HRs have seriously tailed off since week 2. His best season so far was 2016 (.258/.323/.465/.786). That was similar to Cutch's worst season of his career (.256/.336/.430/.766).
At his best in 2016, Polanco was a useful player but not a star to build around. After 9 years of pro ball, I don't expect his ability to judge fly balls to significantly improve. Nor do I expect that long swing to elevate his offense to a higher level. He can be a useful player as he was 2 years ago. On the other hand, he seems to be an easily replaceable player, as his offense is not outstanding and his defense is poor. And owing him 33 million is a problem. I'd love to see him blossom into a star. But I have a hard time believing the Polanco we've seen for 5 years now is going to do that. He's ok until someone better comes along and he could have value to other organizations who would see him as a useful player (maybe a DH who can play some OF). He could probably get back a decent prospect in a trade. It's also possible Meadows could replace him and then struggle (altho his defense seems solid). But Polanco has just not shown enough ability to put a priority on giving him an indefinite number of years to become the player they hoped he would be or to be worth 33 million. In the meantime, bat him 7th, remove the pressure of batting high in the order, and hope for improvement.
At his best in 2016, Polanco was a useful player but not a star to build around. After 9 years of pro ball, I don't expect his ability to judge fly balls to significantly improve. Nor do I expect that long swing to elevate his offense to a higher level. He can be a useful player as he was 2 years ago. On the other hand, he seems to be an easily replaceable player, as his offense is not outstanding and his defense is poor. And owing him 33 million is a problem. I'd love to see him blossom into a star. But I have a hard time believing the Polanco we've seen for 5 years now is going to do that. He's ok until someone better comes along and he could have value to other organizations who would see him as a useful player (maybe a DH who can play some OF). He could probably get back a decent prospect in a trade. It's also possible Meadows could replace him and then struggle (altho his defense seems solid). But Polanco has just not shown enough ability to put a priority on giving him an indefinite number of years to become the player they hoped he would be or to be worth 33 million. In the meantime, bat him 7th, remove the pressure of batting high in the order, and hope for improvement.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3619
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
Polanco Slumping
0D202D3C3B2A3D7D7E4F0 wrote: I'm just not enamored with Polanco's potential. Year after year he has demonstrated that he is not a good defensive player. I wonder who it was in the system who sold the Pirates brass on the idea that he was a very good outfielder. They need much better internal evaluations than that. Polanco's long swing can generate power but is not conducive to frequency of hits. So it's not at all surprising that his career high BA is a mere .258. Unless he dramatically changes his swing, it's unlikely he'll ever hit for average. And it's not as if he's a power hitter either. Career best HR total was 22. No other year with more than 11. He should top 11 this year because of his hot start but the HRs have seriously tailed off since week 2. His best season so far was 2016 (.258/.323/.465/.786). That was similar to Cutch's worst season of his career (.256/.336/.430/.766).
At his best in 2016, Polanco was a useful player but not a star to build around. After 9 years of pro ball, I don't expect his ability to judge fly balls to significantly improve. Nor do I expect that long swing to elevate his offense to a higher level. He can be a useful player as he was 2 years ago. On the other hand, he seems to be an easily replaceable player, as his offense is not outstanding and his defense is poor. And owing him 33 million is a problem. I'd love to see him blossom into a star. But I have a hard time believing the Polanco we've seen for 5 years now is going to do that. He's ok until someone better comes along and he could have value to other organizations who would see him as a useful player (maybe a DH who can play some OF). He could probably get back a decent prospect in a trade. It's also possible Meadows could replace him and then struggle (altho his defense seems solid). But Polanco has just not shown enough ability to put a priority on giving him an indefinite number of years to become the player they hoped he would be or to be worth 33 million. In the meantime, bat him 7th, remove the pressure of batting high in the order, and hope for improvement.
Great post I could not say it better. Gregory in my opinion is at a crossroad this season. If his performance does not improve this season I see the Pirates attempting to trade him this offseason. There are players in their system who can replace him such as Meadows and Luplow as well as the outfielders they acquired in the Cole and McCutchen trades.
At his best in 2016, Polanco was a useful player but not a star to build around. After 9 years of pro ball, I don't expect his ability to judge fly balls to significantly improve. Nor do I expect that long swing to elevate his offense to a higher level. He can be a useful player as he was 2 years ago. On the other hand, he seems to be an easily replaceable player, as his offense is not outstanding and his defense is poor. And owing him 33 million is a problem. I'd love to see him blossom into a star. But I have a hard time believing the Polanco we've seen for 5 years now is going to do that. He's ok until someone better comes along and he could have value to other organizations who would see him as a useful player (maybe a DH who can play some OF). He could probably get back a decent prospect in a trade. It's also possible Meadows could replace him and then struggle (altho his defense seems solid). But Polanco has just not shown enough ability to put a priority on giving him an indefinite number of years to become the player they hoped he would be or to be worth 33 million. In the meantime, bat him 7th, remove the pressure of batting high in the order, and hope for improvement.
Great post I could not say it better. Gregory in my opinion is at a crossroad this season. If his performance does not improve this season I see the Pirates attempting to trade him this offseason. There are players in their system who can replace him such as Meadows and Luplow as well as the outfielders they acquired in the Cole and McCutchen trades.
Polanco Slumping
092429383F2E39797A4B0 wrote: I'm just not enamored with Polanco's potential. Year after year he has demonstrated that he is not a good defensive player. I wonder who it was in the system who sold the Pirates brass on the idea that he was a very good outfielder. They need much better internal evaluations than that. Polanco's long swing can generate power but is not conducive to frequency of hits. So it's not at all surprising that his career high BA is a mere .258. Unless he dramatically changes his swing, it's unlikely he'll ever hit for average. And it's not as if he's a power hitter either. Career best HR total was 22. No other year with more than 11. He should top 11 this year because of his hot start but the HRs have seriously tailed off since week 2. His best season so far was 2016 (.258/.323/.465/.786). That was similar to Cutch's worst season of his career (.256/.336/.430/.766).
At his best in 2016, Polanco was a useful player but not a star to build around. After 9 years of pro ball, I don't expect his ability to judge fly balls to significantly improve. Nor do I expect that long swing to elevate his offense to a higher level. He can be a useful player as he was 2 years ago. On the other hand, he seems to be an easily replaceable player, as his offense is not outstanding and his defense is poor. And owing him 33 million is a problem. I'd love to see him blossom into a star. But I have a hard time believing the Polanco we've seen for 5 years now is going to do that. He's ok until someone better comes along and he could have value to other organizations who would see him as a useful player (maybe a DH who can play some OF). He could probably get back a decent prospect in a trade. It's also possible Meadows could replace him and then struggle (altho his defense seems solid). But Polanco has just not shown enough ability to put a priority on giving him an indefinite number of years to become the player they hoped he would be or to be worth 33 million. In the meantime, bat him 7th, remove the pressure of batting high in the order, and hope for improvement.
Potential is a word that get most managers/coaches and Gms fired, not hired. Totally agree with this post. Can't say it any better. I have to admit, I was enamored when he came up. He looked the part. Showed some flashes that did say star coming soon. Two years ago, he put together a pretty decent year and I thought he was on the cusp. Less than two years later, totally agree and my enameration isn't there anymore.
At his best in 2016, Polanco was a useful player but not a star to build around. After 9 years of pro ball, I don't expect his ability to judge fly balls to significantly improve. Nor do I expect that long swing to elevate his offense to a higher level. He can be a useful player as he was 2 years ago. On the other hand, he seems to be an easily replaceable player, as his offense is not outstanding and his defense is poor. And owing him 33 million is a problem. I'd love to see him blossom into a star. But I have a hard time believing the Polanco we've seen for 5 years now is going to do that. He's ok until someone better comes along and he could have value to other organizations who would see him as a useful player (maybe a DH who can play some OF). He could probably get back a decent prospect in a trade. It's also possible Meadows could replace him and then struggle (altho his defense seems solid). But Polanco has just not shown enough ability to put a priority on giving him an indefinite number of years to become the player they hoped he would be or to be worth 33 million. In the meantime, bat him 7th, remove the pressure of batting high in the order, and hope for improvement.
Potential is a word that get most managers/coaches and Gms fired, not hired. Totally agree with this post. Can't say it any better. I have to admit, I was enamored when he came up. He looked the part. Showed some flashes that did say star coming soon. Two years ago, he put together a pretty decent year and I thought he was on the cusp. Less than two years later, totally agree and my enameration isn't there anymore.
Polanco Slumping
His defense is a real weight on him. It's an anchor around his neck he's dragging around now, and I don't understand it.
in my opinion, he looked sloppy in the past but was getting to more balls and overall still a solid defender because of it. People saying he was terrible I felt were wrong, it was just the eyes and his lack of coordination deceiving.
This year has been worse defensively so far. he's making a lot of mistakes in right. Why is he such a poor outfielder with his routes and jumps? Its troubling that his defense is playing so poorly because, while many people argue that defense is overblown, it certainly matters to overall value.
both Bell and Polanco need to do better than 110-115 OPS+ to be GOOD baseball players if they can't field the positions they play decently. That's what it's all about right? good players, not decent players hyped as cornerstones, but actual good players
in my opinion, he looked sloppy in the past but was getting to more balls and overall still a solid defender because of it. People saying he was terrible I felt were wrong, it was just the eyes and his lack of coordination deceiving.
This year has been worse defensively so far. he's making a lot of mistakes in right. Why is he such a poor outfielder with his routes and jumps? Its troubling that his defense is playing so poorly because, while many people argue that defense is overblown, it certainly matters to overall value.
both Bell and Polanco need to do better than 110-115 OPS+ to be GOOD baseball players if they can't field the positions they play decently. That's what it's all about right? good players, not decent players hyped as cornerstones, but actual good players
-
Wrathchild
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:23 pm
Polanco Slumping
Defense definitely matters and the way some metrics are grading his defense this year is, in fact, killing his value. But...he has not graded poorly in RF over his career. It is incorrect to say he has always been a poor outfielder no matter how often someone wants to say it. His value hasn't been very good in the past, not because of defense, but because he wasn't generally very good offensively. But, that has changed at least so far this year. And, while he is not grading well defensively so far this year by some metrics, I don't believe he's actually a worse defender. He's 26. It makes no sense to me. And even the most ardent supporters of defensive statistics will generally admit that they aren't that valuable over 40 game stretches. In the end, I think his offensive value will mirror his overall value. That hasn't been good for Polanco for much of his early career, but it will be even if he maintains OPS levels that he's putting up now.